There are definitely women who claim to find sex work a reasonable way to make a living. I've met some, known a couple. But (1) they were very picky about their clients, and (2) the couple I knew pretty well had personalities that were 'different', to use a non-judgemental word.

IOW, I can't imagine doing that kind of work myself because I'd find it repulsive, but I can't judge everyone because of my responses.

However, most of the women I knew who were prostitutes were not at all happy with the work and even if they weren't being run by violent abusive pimps or addicts, but were simply uneducated and unable to find other employment, would have much preferred a regular job, even if it was just working in a kitchen or cleaning.

(Hell, I knew one woman who couldn't find other work because she was physically intimidating and I suspect she scared the shit out of prospective employers. She didn't really do well as a prostitute either. )

Legalising prostitution increases the demand from men, but it doesn't increase the supply of women to match the increased demand.

I feel like that's another huge [citation needed].

What makes you thing legalizing getting paid to have sex - an activity that, by right, most of us enjoy - is not going to entice a number of women to say "hey yeah I could do that since it's legal"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

Yes. Imagine yourself in a situation where you're compelled to have sex with a person you find sexually repellant?

Pretty sure that situation fucks right off with the legalization-and-regulation bit. No one can legally force your consent to partake in a sexual act, and if someone does then you now have legal recourse against those people or entities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

Imagine you're renting a room in a brothel and you need to have sex with 4 such people before you start making any money after the cost of room hire. Do you think you could afford to be picky?

Idk apparently by your own argument demand is going to be huge and supply will be low... So lets assume a going rate of $200 / person or hour, how much do you realistically need? Is the room that expensive? Why not just use a hotel like prostitutes already do? Or make the john pay for the room... like most prostitutes already do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

I can't watch that video just now, does she say she would recommend that job to a daughter or a sister or a close female friend?

I don't think that particular question was posed but she's pretty pro-getting-paid-to-have-sex.

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic

Face, I can't help feeling that you're not taking into account the degree to which work in general -- very nearly all work -- is loathsome. Work is all about taking money in return for giving someone a part of you, for a certain time interval. Taking money for doing something that you would otherwise not do.

I must take care of my family. I'm in a job that I would desperately like to get out of, except that I have never found anything better, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a better (less loathsome) option simply doesn't exist.

You're treating prostitution as if it's somehow fundamentally qualitatively different from other work. I'm not seeing it. So help me understand.

__________________Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstatesborealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.

Prostitution is like abortion, it is no one's business except those it directly involves.

Except that if the laws make it more dangerous for the participant because of not having access to legal and medical protection.

Your ethics are pure crap.
It is propagating the bullshit that everyone's opinion matters.
Which is Bullshit and Dangerous Bullshit because terrorists are expressing their opinion all the time in violence.

People who are expressing their opinion on homosexuality being a sin are doing violence as much as terrorists because they are expressing an opinion of what other people should do with their bodies.

Likewise Abortion Likewise prostitution.
Anyone telling people what they can or cannot do with their body are terrorists.
Hence so much of my hatred of religion.
And yes that is a dangerous opinion as well because to me teaching children religion is child abuse and should be illegal.

Legalising prostitution increases the demand from men, but it doesn't increase the supply of women to match the increased demand.

I feel like that's another huge [citation needed].

You first. You're the one making claims that are contrary to observed evidence.

Quote:

What makes you thing legalizing getting paid to have sex - an activity that, by right, most of us enjoy - is not going to entice a number of women to say "hey yeah I could do that since it's legal"?

Quote:

Pretty sure that situation fucks right off with the legalization-and-regulation bit. No one can legally force your consent to partake in a sexual act, and if someone does then you now have legal recourse against those people or entities.

You believe consent can be bought though.

Quote:

Idk apparently by your own argument demand is going to be huge and supply will be low... So lets assume a going rate of $200 / person or hour, how much do you realistically need? Is the room that expensive? Why not just use a hotel like prostitutes already do? Or make the john pay for the room... like most prostitutes already do?

According to your argument, demand will be huge and supply will be huge as thousands of women will leap at the opportunity to have crap one-sided sex with multiple strangers a night. That will drive down prices as competition increases. Where does this $200/person or hour figure come from?

In countries like Germany which have legalised prostitution, human trafficking of women in to prostitution is a massive problem.

Quote:

I don't think that particular question was posed but she's pretty pro-getting-paid-to-have-sex.

Yes, but would she suggest it to her daughter. That's all I want to know.

I'm going to leave you with the words of the brothel owner Jürgen Rudloff who was asked if he would be happy for either of his daughters to work in his brothel.

''“Unthinkable, unthinkable. The question alone is brutal. I don’t mean to offend the prostitutes but I try to raise my children so that they have professional opportunities. Most prostitutes don’t have those options. That’s why they’re doing that job. Unimaginable. I don’t even want to think about it"

I am only disgusted by those who think they have the right to pay for sexual access to other people's bodies.

What about those who think they have the right to let people fuck them for money?

Are they universally victims? Or do those people have any 'agency'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by borealis

However, most of the women I knew who were prostitutes were not at all happy with the work and even if they weren't being run by violent abusive pimps or addicts, but were simply uneducated and unable to find other employment, would have much preferred a regular job, even if it was just working in a kitchen or cleaning.

One of the insidious parts of this discussion is that lots of labour work is bloody terrible.

There are several things which I have been paid minimum wage to do, which would ruin other people if forced to do it.

In fact, almost all work is stuff which people wouldn't do. Except for money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timewave

Likewise Abortion Likewise prostitution.
Anyone telling people what they can or cannot do with their body are terrorists.
Hence so much of my hatred of religion.
And yes that is a dangerous opinion as well because to me teaching children religion is child abuse and should be illegal.

But then we really should outlaw all religion so where does it stop?

So does this mean you have found a way to respect folks who hire sex workers?

Face, I can't help feeling that you're not taking into account the degree to which work in general -- very nearly all work -- is loathsome. Work is all about taking money in return for giving someone a part of you, for a certain time interval. Taking money for doing something that you would otherwise not do.

I must take care of my family. I'm in a job that I would desperately like to get out of, except that I have never found anything better, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a better (less loathsome) option simply doesn't exist.

You're treating prostitution as if it's somehow fundamentally qualitatively different from other work. I'm not seeing it. So help me understand.

In any other job the inside of your body isn't considered the workplace. This fact alone sets prostitution apart.

Face, I can't help feeling that you're not taking into account the degree to which work in general -- very nearly all work -- is loathsome. Work is all about taking money in return for giving someone a part of you, for a certain time interval. Taking money for doing something that you would otherwise not do.

I must take care of my family. I'm in a job that I would desperately like to get out of, except that I have never found anything better, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a better (less loathsome) option simply doesn't exist.

You're treating prostitution as if it's somehow fundamentally qualitatively different from other work. I'm not seeing it. So help me understand.

In any other job the inside of your body isn't considered the workplace. This fact alone sets prostitution apart.

Surgeon? Enema technician? Groom of the stool? Dental Hygenist?

I think your 'facts' are a bit soft around the edges.

Not to mention fairly meaningless.

Your boss can demand urine samples. If a boss is doing it for drug testing, is it somehow less creepy than if they do it for golden showers?

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Face, I can't help feeling that you're not taking into account the degree to which work in general -- very nearly all work -- is loathsome. Work is all about taking money in return for giving someone a part of you, for a certain time interval. Taking money for doing something that you would otherwise not do.

I must take care of my family. I'm in a job that I would desperately like to get out of, except that I have never found anything better, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a better (less loathsome) option simply doesn't exist.

You're treating prostitution as if it's somehow fundamentally qualitatively different from other work. I'm not seeing it. So help me understand.

In any other job the inside of your body isn't considered the workplace. This fact alone sets prostitution apart.

Even if this "fact" were granted, how would that "set prostitution apart"? The distinction you're drawing is purely arbitrary.

__________________Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstatesborealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.

Prostitution is like abortion, it is no one's business except those it directly involves.

Except that if the laws make it more dangerous for the participant because of not having access to legal and medical protection.

Your ethics are pure crap.
It is propagating the bullshit that everyone's opinion matters.
Which is Bullshit and Dangerous Bullshit because terrorists are expressing their opinion all the time in violence.

People who are expressing their opinion on homosexuality being a sin are doing violence as much as terrorists because they are expressing an opinion of what other people should do with their bodies.

Likewise Abortion Likewise prostitution.
Anyone telling people what they can or cannot do with their body are terrorists.
Hence so much of my hatred of religion.
And yes that is a dangerous opinion as well because to me teaching children religion is child abuse and should be illegal.

But then we really should outlaw all religion so where does it stop?

If our current political/economic systems is creating a class of women whose opportunties are so limited that their only way of surival is to sell access to their bodies this is very much the business of all society.

We do set limits on what people can or can't do with their bodies. We tell men all the time that they can't stick their dicks in to the bodies of unwilling women.

If our current political/economic systems is creating a class of women whose opportunties are so limited that their only way of surival is to sell access to their bodies this is very much the business of all society.

Do traps count as 'women' to you?

I can see by your statement that you don't care at all about male prostitutes, but if they dress and present themselves as feminine, do they then earn equal sympathy from you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

We do set limits on what people can or can't do with their bodies. We tell men all the time that they can't stick their dicks in to the bodies of unwilling women.

Men and women are both prostitutes. The fact that you can't imagine a life that isn't black and white, perpetrators and victims, oppressor and oppressed, says some pretty ugly things about your use of 'group identity' in your thinking.

You first. You're the one making claims that are contrary to observed evidence.

What observed evidence? I remind you that you are positing that the number of prostitutes available necessarily won't increase if prostitution is legalized. That is the argument you made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

You believe consent can be bought though.

That is a completely false statement and you're using a strawman to argue against me

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

According to your argument, demand will be huge and supply will be huge as thousands of women will leap at the opportunity to have crap one-sided sex with multiple strangers a night. That will drive down prices as competition increases. Where does this $200/person or hour figure come from?

Pulled it out of my ass. Do you know how markets work? People aren't going to hop into a job they don't want if the money isn't there. It's called oversaturation. People aren't going to be working for hours just to "break even".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

In countries like Germany which have legalised prostitution, human trafficking of women in to prostitution is a massive problem.

And that seems like a failure by government to crack down on entities acting outside of the law.

Ask yourself if the human trafficking decreases drastically if prostitution were illegal. No? Then legalization didn't cause the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

Quote:

I don't think that particular question was posed but she's pretty pro-getting-paid-to-have-sex.

Yes, but would she suggest it to her daughter. That's all I want to know.

I don't have that answer but you're going to make an appeal to ignorance here and that's yet another fallacy in your argument riddled with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

I'm going to leave you with the words of the brothel owner Jürgen Rudloff who was asked if he would be happy for either of his daughters to work in his brothel.

''“Unthinkable, unthinkable. The question alone is brutal. I don’t mean to offend the prostitutes but I try to raise my children so that they have professional opportunities. Most prostitutes don’t have those options. That’s why they’re doing that job. Unimaginable. I don’t even want to think about it"

Yes and I'm sure my parents would have loved me to have been a lawyer or a doctor, too.

How many parents do you think want their kids to be waste collectors? Janitors? Roofers? Maybe we should make those all illegal too because mommy and daddy wanted better for their babies.

Face, I can't help feeling that you're not taking into account the degree to which work in general -- very nearly all work -- is loathsome. Work is all about taking money in return for giving someone a part of you, for a certain time interval. Taking money for doing something that you would otherwise not do.

I must take care of my family. I'm in a job that I would desperately like to get out of, except that I have never found anything better, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a better (less loathsome) option simply doesn't exist.

You're treating prostitution as if it's somehow fundamentally qualitatively different from other work. I'm not seeing it. So help me understand.

In any other job the inside of your body isn't considered the workplace. This fact alone sets prostitution apart.

Even if this "fact" were granted, how would that "set prostitution apart"? The distinction you're drawing is purely arbitrary.

It is granted. To paraphrase one ex prostituted woman, in McDonalds you're preparing the meat, in prostitution you are the meat. It's the only job where a 12 year old with no skills and no experience can earn more than a 40 year old with decades of experience and numerous skills.

Prostitution is one of the only jobs with charities specifically set up to help the people working within it get out. These charities still exist where prostitution is legalised. How can this be if it's a job just like any other? Mcdonalds burger flippers don't have third sector agencies sending out-reach workers to build relationships with them, to help and support them in exiting McDonalds wage slavery. Ditto public toilet cleaners. Ditto nearly every job other than the sun with a couple of notable exceptions and those exceptions are in sectors which are notorious for their use of slaves/trafficking victims.*

Just out of interest, do you support the existence of charities who aim to help women leave prostitution? Or do you think they're unnecessary?

ha. Every time you take a job here in the US now, you have to sign an intellectual property rights statement that ANYTHING you create while working for the company belongs to the company.

So, this guy I worked with was in a Band, and this agreement worried him. So we wrote a letter and sent it to our State Senator and asked about the wording. And the Senator agreed that the way it was worded it would mean any SONG he created while off work would be the property of the company.

The Senator suggested we hire a lawyer.

I have no disrespect at all for sex workers, or their customers. And yep, I have known a few. Not an issue with me at all either way. I agree with TW. Anyone who is bothered by what other people get up too on their own time has their own issues.

And living on the border with Mexico, I know that human trafficking isn't all about sex. Much of the time it is about housekeeping and lawn care

Face's case isn't very good at all. I don't see the distinction between using the inside of your body, or working a job that has the potential to do severe bodily harm (construction) or death (oil rig), or a job that makes you sign your intellect over to them...

And while women do make up the majority of sex workers, they are not the only ones, and the current illegal situation is even worse on male and transgender hookers.

Switzerland open a gay male brothel in 2010 I think. In Nevada, because the law requires a "cervical" exam, and men can't have Cervical exams, it is technically illegal. Rhode Island noticed it didn't have a law against male prostitution in 2007, and rushed to fix it.

And this is a great side by side comparison. I think the Con people can't envision a world where being a hooker is an acceptable profession without a social stigma. If there were no social stigma, there would be fewer issues, but the Con people can't get over their own ingrained stigma's.

Face, I can't help feeling that you're not taking into account the degree to which work in general -- very nearly all work -- is loathsome. Work is all about taking money in return for giving someone a part of you, for a certain time interval. Taking money for doing something that you would otherwise not do.

I must take care of my family. I'm in a job that I would desperately like to get out of, except that I have never found anything better, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a better (less loathsome) option simply doesn't exist.

You're treating prostitution as if it's somehow fundamentally qualitatively different from other work. I'm not seeing it. So help me understand.

In any other job the inside of your body isn't considered the workplace. This fact alone sets prostitution apart.

Even if this "fact" were granted, how would that "set prostitution apart"? The distinction you're drawing is purely arbitrary.

It is granted. To paraphrase one ex prostituted woman, in McDonalds you're preparing the meat, in prostitution you are the meat. It's the only job where a 12 year old with no skills and no experience can earn more than a 40 year old with decades of experience and numerous skills.

Prostitution is one of the only jobs with charities specifically set up to help the people working within it get out. These charities still exist where prostitution is legalised. How can this be if it's a job just like any other? Mcdonalds burger flippers don't have third sector agencies sending out-reach workers to build relationships with them, to help and support them in exiting McDonalds wage slavery. Ditto public toilet cleaners. Ditto nearly every job other than the sun with a couple of notable exceptions and those exceptions are in sectors which are notorious for their use of slaves/trafficking victims.*

Just out of interest, do you support the existence of charities who aim to help women leave prostitution? Or do you think they're unnecessary?

*hand car washers, nail salons, cleaners

Are they religious based charities? Just asking.

Charities can do what they want too. The fact that charities exist doesn't say anything about prostitution except that it is socially unacceptable.

Is it illegal because it is socially unacceptable, or is it socially unacceptable because it is illegal?

And if it is illegal because it is socially unacceptable, is that lack of acceptance based on some religious book somewhere? Or religious movement of self righteous people? Out here in the wild west, the hookers didn't have to move out of town till a church moved in = p.

And now you pull the kid card, which is an entirely separate issue. Anywhere prostitution is legal, underage prostitution is not. Kind of like underage people working in bars.

That is a completely false statement and you're using a strawman to argue against me

You may have missed something important here, Majiffy.

I think Facetious is contending that consent (whatever it is) cannot be sold.

Is that true, Facetious?

And I'm agreeing that consent can't be sold. The prostitutes should have full right to revoke consent at any time. I suggest contracts with what services are rendered and for what price. Service rendered -> money
Stop service / don't consent -> don't pay

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Face, I can't help feeling that you're not taking into account the degree to which work in general -- very nearly all work -- is loathsome. Work is all about taking money in return for giving someone a part of you, for a certain time interval. Taking money for doing something that you would otherwise not do.

I must take care of my family. I'm in a job that I would desperately like to get out of, except that I have never found anything better, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a better (less loathsome) option simply doesn't exist.

You're treating prostitution as if it's somehow fundamentally qualitatively different from other work. I'm not seeing it. So help me understand.

In any other job the inside of your body isn't considered the workplace. This fact alone sets prostitution apart.

Even if this "fact" were granted, how would that "set prostitution apart"? The distinction you're drawing is purely arbitrary.

It is granted. To paraphrase one ex prostituted woman, in McDonalds you're preparing the meat, in prostitution you are the meat. It's the only job where a 12 year old with no skills and no experience can earn more than a 40 year old with decades of experience and numerous skills.

Prostitution is one of the only jobs with charities specifically set up to help the people working within it get out. These charities still exist where prostitution is legalised. How can this be if it's a job just like any other? Mcdonalds burger flippers don't have third sector agencies sending out-reach workers to build relationships with them, to help and support them in exiting McDonalds wage slavery. Ditto public toilet cleaners. Ditto nearly every job other than the sun with a couple of notable exceptions and those exceptions are in sectors which are notorious for their use of slaves/trafficking victims.*

*hand car washers, nail salons, cleaners

The "couple of notable exceptions" that you mention here (and your suggested reason for the exceptions) are enough to completely negate the force of your bolded question (my bolding added). The rest of your post is not responsive to my question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

Just out of interest, do you support the existence of charities who aim to help women leave prostitution? Or do you think they're unnecessary?

I have no problem with the existence of such charities. I have no opinion one way or the other about their necessity.

__________________Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstatesborealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: a peninsula in the North Atlantic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majiffy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majiffy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Facetious

You believe consent can be bought though.

That is a completely false statement and you're using a strawman to argue against me

You may have missed something important here, Majiffy.

I think Facetious is contending that consent (whatever it is) cannot be sold.

Is that true, Facetious?

And I'm agreeing that consent can't be sold. The prostitutes should have full right to revoke consent at any time. I suggest contracts with what services are rendered and for what price. Service rendered -> money
Stop service / don't consent -> don't pay

No one can be legally forced to consent, money or not

I don't think this is consistent. I agree with most of it (in particular, "the prostitutes should have full right to revoke consent at any time", and "no one can be legally forced to consent, money or not"). But as soon as you allow that the prostitutes are, in fact, consenting to sex in exchange for money, you're allowing that consent can be bought and sold.

If you say that consent can't be sold, you're saying that a prostitute's consent shouldn't count as real consent -- just as we do (with good reasons) for a child's consent.

Your response ("strawman") to Facetious's accusation ("You believe consent can be bought though") was surprising to me: I would have thought a more natural response would be (a) that her statement was irrelevant to the point she was responding to, and (b) well of course consent can be bought, and surely you can't seriously be suggesting otherwise!

The statement that consent can be bought does NOT imply that anyone can be forced to give consent merely by the offer of money.

__________________Jiffy: Canadians are considered an invasive pest on New York roads and interstatesborealis: They're pretty tasty stuffed and roasted. All dark meat though.

That is a completely false statement and you're using a strawman to argue against me

You may have missed something important here, Majiffy.

I think Facetious is contending that consent (whatever it is) cannot be sold.

Is that true, Facetious?

And I'm agreeing that consent can't be sold. The prostitutes should have full right to revoke consent at any time. I suggest contracts with what services are rendered and for what price. Service rendered -> money
Stop service / don't consent -> don't pay

No one can be legally forced to consent, money or not

I don't think this is consistent. I agree with most of it (in particular, "the prostitutes should have full right to revoke consent at any time", and "no one can be legally forced to consent, money or not"). But as soon as you allow that the prostitutes are, in fact, consenting to sex in exchange for money, you're allowing that consent can be bought and sold.

If you say that consent can't be sold, you're saying that a prostitute's consent shouldn't count as real consent -- just as we do (with good reasons) for a child's consent.

Your response ("strawman") to Facetious's accusation ("You believe consent can be bought though") was surprising to me: I would have thought a more natural response would be (a) that her statement was irrelevant to the point she was responding to, and (b) well of course consent can be bought, and surely you can't seriously be suggesting otherwise!

The statement that consent can be bought does NOT imply that anyone can be forced to give consent merely by the offer of money.

What observed evidence? I remind you that you are positing that the number of prostitutes available necessarily won't increase if prostitution is legalized. That is the argument you made.

I was responding to your original assertion that legalising prostitution reduces illegal activities. This is false, illegal activity increases when prostitution is legalised because it causes an upsurge in human trafficking.

I should have said, the number of native born prostitutes doesn't tend to increase because of legalisation. The extra demand is met primarily through illegal means by trafficking women from other countries.

Quote:

That is a completely false statement and you're using a strawman to argue against me

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. If I've misunderstood you then that's fine, however, I struggle to see how you can reconcile a belief that consent can't be bought, with a belief that the prostituted woman/punter sexual encounter is fully consensual. I can't square that circle.

Quote:

Pulled it out of my ass. Do you know how markets work? People aren't going to hop into a job they don't want if the money isn't there. It's called oversaturation. People aren't going to be working for hours just to "break even".

So neo-liberalism would tell us, yet there are women in Germany who sell access to their bodies for as little as 10 euro's. People on the lower rungs of the economic ladder don't tend to behave in the way the economists say they should. People in prostitution tend to be there because as far as they can see there are no other alternatives. Rather than leaving, what you find is that prostitutes will offer more or higher risk 'services'. Not using condoms for example.

Quote:

Ask yourself if the human trafficking decreases drastically if prostitution were illegal. No? Then legalization didn't cause the problem

.

Human trafficking is lower in countries where prostitution is illegal. The only way to really answer your question would be to observe what happens to trafficking rates when a country with legalised prostitution, adopts something like the nordic model. I believe the Netherlands is about to do this so in a few years we may have the answer.

Quote:

Yes and I'm sure my parents would have loved me to have been a lawyer or a doctor, too.

How many parents do you think want their kids to be waste collectors? Janitors? Roofers? Maybe we should make those all illegal too because mommy and daddy wanted better for their babies.

Get you and your middle classness.
Interesting response though, you've picked three traditionally working class jobs, and these are the ones you're equating prostitution to. An acceptable choice for a working class girl but not for a middle class one?

Does offering more money to secure consent count as fair business practice? Or coercion?

That's first one is a sticky question I'd rather not even attempt to tip toe around.

I'd say there's two distinct consents here: consent as to the actual act or acts, and consent for the act-for-money. Someone can, say, consent to oral sex for a price. If the second party wants to pay less, party 1 is well within their bounds to NOT consent to the lower price, even though they've expressed consent to the act (at a higher price)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

I don't think this is consistent. I agree with most of it (in particular, "the prostitutes should have full right to revoke consent at any time", and "no one can be legally forced to consent, money or not"). But as soon as you allow that the prostitutes are, in fact, consenting to sex in exchange for money, you're allowing that consent can be bought and sold.

not really, because that framing takes the free agency of consent for the act out of the hands of the payee and places it into the hands of the payer. See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

The statement that consent can be bought does NOT imply that anyone can be forced to give consent merely by the offer of money.

I disagree, in the most pedant of ways. I'd prefer the statement "consent can be sold" which is more accurate and still leaving free agency to the seller.

There's a level of implication in "consent can be bought" that seems to remove that agency.